I appreciate your are butting into a conversation you know nothing about blathering nonsense because you didn't bother to read the thread again, but I'll pass on you're attempt to divert.
It is an impediment in some cases. In some places, it is archaic and does more harm than good. It was written by men. They were not divine. Its not a perfect document.
I am always fascinated with the idea that a portion of the population knows what is constitutional or not. The constitutionality of anything is determined by 9 people. If they are selected by one party or the other, the decision could be 180 degrees apart had the other party been favored with choosing a justice. So any objective observer must acknowledge that determining the legal interpretation of the founding documents is purely a political decision. There are virtually no absolutes in this debate. This is why it is vitally important to vote for the party you choose when any open seat is available.
It's not trivial, though you tried to paint it that way. It IS the foundation of our govt, and the president took an oath to uphold and defend it against all enemies, foreign and domestic. He has repeatedly violated that oath. No amount of spin can negate that fact.
If you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place. -- Murray Rothbard
This mega-fgov we have now is nowhere near what was intended. To say it's an abuse is somewhat an understatement.
When was the last Republican administration that kept their promise to downsize the government? (answer: Never has happened.) That's a con-game the GOP keeps playing and sometimes manages to fool some voters with.
Since everything the state does is done via the initiation of aggression, I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything it does and seeking ways private citizens could could accomplish those functions via voluntary cooperation.
Yeah . . . that is why he has Biden as his sidekick. You know, to say the things Oblowme wants to say puppeteer style.
So you want private FAA controllers, private fire departments and cops? The concept that some things aren't handled better by us all acting collectively and sharing the cost makes no sense to me. I can't afford even one of these: Can you?
If we could figure out a way to do so, sure. I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything the government does and seeking ways private citizens could could accomplish those functions via voluntary cooperation. And actually, there is a private, volunteer fire department in my town, so that is apparently something that private citizens are able to accomplish via voluntary cooperation. As I said, if a function can be accomplished via voluntary cooperation, then I'd prefer that. If we can't figure out how to do that, then I suppose we wait until we figure out a way that it can be.
Most of what government (us collectively) do we do because individual citizens can't or don't want to do it themselves. A volunteer fire department is only possible in a very small town.....it could never work in New York, L.A. or Chicago. Somethings must be done by "We the people"...... working together and sharing the expenses. That will never change no matter what Fox News tells you.
Like I said before, I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything the government does and seeking ways private citizens could could accomplish those functions via voluntary cooperation. Putting people in jail for the distillation of alcohol is just downright evil, so I would take a very hard look at changing the law so that the government no longer has that function.
I don't disagree with the concept..... only the chances of people and businesses foregoing greed and working together for everyone's benefit. Privatizing to me is the codeword for already wealthy people who don't want any rules and care only about themselves and their family.
I certainly don't advocate a legal system in which there are no rules. However, since everything the state does is done via the initiation of aggression, I would be in favor of looking very hard at everything it does and establishing the rules (i.e. laws) that would a) eliminate government initiations of aggression where we can and b) hold people accountable (via criminal or civil avenues) for harms they cause to the person or property of others.
What "Aggressions" caused the government (us) to establish Social Security, Medicare, Obamacare, the minimum wage, child welfare laws and the school lunch programs?
................of course...........you really think I'd sell and aircraft carrier without a trailer? hope you have a Ram pickup truck.........
Yes, these are the sorts of things that the state currently does via the initiation of aggression and at which I would take a long hard look.
